Scripture To Think About...

[Budge]

[quote]Even if you don't believe we're worshiping the true God, we do, we're not worshiping something beside him, we believe we're worshiping HIM. [/quote]

Really?[size=4][b]
A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed

To love all Bible truths and tales, quite early she’s been bred.
It sorely grieved her husband’s heart that she would not comply,
And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny.
So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good
Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood.
The Mass, the host, the miracles, were made but to deceive;
And transubstantiation, too, she’d never dare believe.
He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale.
“My wife is an unbeliever, sir; you can perhaps prevail;
For all your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion,
To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion.”
The priest went with the gentleman--he thought to gain a prize.
He said, “I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes.”
So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried,
“The priest has come to dine with us!” “He’s welcome,” she replied.
And when, at last, the meal was o’er, the priest at once began,
To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man;
The greatness of our Savior’s love, which Christians can’t deny.
To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.
“I will return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine;
The sacramental miracle will stop your soul’s decline.”
“I’ll bake the bread,” the lady said. “You may,” he did reply,
“And when you’ve seen this miracle, convinced you’ll be, say I.”
The priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless.
The lady asked, “Sir, is it changed?” The priest answered, “Yes.
It’s changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood;
Begorra, lass, this power of mine has changed it into God!”
So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare.
The lady said unto the priest, “I warn you to take care,
For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter,
But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter.”
The priest was struck real dumb--he looked as pale as death.
The bread and wine fell from his hands and he did gasp for breath.
“Bring me my horse!” the priest cried, “This is a cursed home!”
The lady replied, “Begone; tis you who shares the curse of Rome”
The husband, too, he sat surprised, and not a word did say.
At length he spoke, “My dear,” said he, “the priest has run away;
To gulp such mummery and tripe, I’m not for sure, quite able;
I’ll go with you and we’ll renounce this Roman Catholic fable.”
(Irish Poem; Author Unknown)[/b][/size]

[thessalonian]

Well budge how is the Lord's Supper any less of a graven image in Protestant Churches? The bread and wine that they use is "graven" by man. It is supposed to symbolize Christ is it not. Even from a symboic view I think you have the problem your are trying to attack.

Isn't that a sweet little story budge. So that is how Protestants think Catholics should be tricked. Would you put arsenic in bread? Isn't that murder Bubge. Such a Christ loving, bible believing protestant she was. Somehow I doudt the truth of the story (i.e. it's a lie fabricated by anti-catholics like you) but it makes me laugh that you cannot see that it points a finger right back at you. Actually that's sad.

[Budge]

You are missing the point. I thought the lady was terrible to put arsenic in the bread too...

but the fact is the BREAD is the SAME, it did not change into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Even the girl with Gluten allergies cant eat it after its been transubstaniated

The fact is the bread is the SAME.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039031' date='Aug 7 2006, 10:29 AM']
You are missing the point. I thought the lady was terrible to put arsenic in the bread too...

but the fact is the BREAD is the SAME, it did not change into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Even the girl with Gluten allergies cant eat it after its been transubstaniated

The fact is the bread is the SAME.
[/quote]
You still misunderstand.

All the accidents of the bread remain the same. It retains it's taste, texture.. everything that physical senses can understand remain the same. But the SUBSTANCE, what it is, is no longer bread. It becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

[Aloysius]

you sound like quite a materialist; very unbecoming of a Christian.

everything our senses detect is accidental to the nature of the thing. it clues us into the substance, but the substance of everything cannot be known fully except by God.

It's all in Aristotle... nay I even say with Professor Digory Kirke that it's all in Plato... what in God's name do they teach in schools nowadays?

the accidents of bread and wine remain. and the substance of arsenic will not even necessarily change, just the substance of bread (but even if the substance of arsenic were changed its accidents, i.e. how it related to human senses, would not be).

no one who believed that the accidents of a thing could be equated to its substance could every believe that Jesus Christ was true man while at the same time having the complete substance of the Divinity: his humanity was like ours in all things but sin: there was no accidental indication of His divinity in His body.

if you deny Christ's Eucharist on this grounds, I call on you to deny the Incarnation on the same grounds. Inject arsenic into the womb of the Virgin Mary and see if God is pleased.

Just as everything about Christ's body and how it interacted with human senses indicated solely His humanity, everything about the Eucharist and how it interacts with human senses indicates bread. The structure of the molecules and atoms and subatomic particals and quarks remains intact: the mysterious thing that is their very substance changes.

[DAF]

Budge, are you sensing a pattern here? I mean, it looks to me like you're just throwing everything at us that you can think of, and are hoping that something will stick; something will make us blush because we don't have an answer.

Well the truth is that we do have an answer, for everything. The Church has been at it for 2,000 years, how long has the "Open Arms Fuzzy Feel Good Bible Church of the What's Happenin' Now" been answering these questions? The denominations with the most credability would be the Lutherans and the Anglicans, and we all see where those churches are going.

But, if you insist on these silly antics, at least understand what we believe and attack the substance. Stop attaking what you think is our belief, because about everything that you've said here is not.

[Budge]

[quote]Well the truth is that we do have an answer, for everything.[/quote]

wow talk about PRIDE...

the concept of ACCIDENTS was disproven centuries ago.

Every miracle in the Bible showed something happening. Same for Jesus, it was obvious and knowable that He was not like other men and divine...[miracles and more]

Human beings also have souls. They arent inanimate objects like bread.

Bread has no "inner reality" [substance] to be changed.

It is cooked dough.

[img]http://www.pizzatherapy.com/dough.jpg[/img]

[Aloysius]

You sound like a materialist. Again, very unbecoming of a Christian.

as a matter of fact, modern physics has re-affirmed our faith that we do not know the substance of any object: just it's structure and how it relates to our senses. what it is and why it is are questions for philosophy and theology; substance is beyond the scope of human senses and must be sought through human logic.

there is a true substance for everything. you're being far too dualistic; a substance is not the same thing as a soul.

tell me, what is a quark made out of? and if what that quark was made out of was changed into something divine, would we be able to tell by our senses if all the quarks remained in the same locations in space-time?

Christ's miracles were extra-ordinary events in His life. throughout the life of the Eucharist, there have been many extra-ordinary events. God does not perform verifiable miracles on a regular basis becuase He delights in our faith; He performs verifiable miracles on an extra-ordinary basis. there are many spotted dots through history, the eucharist changing into heart tissue flesh in lanciano, it turning away invaders to monasteries/convents, being administered by angels, floating, glowing, bleeding. all these spotted miracles through history are just like the spotted miracles throughout the life of Christ; but in Christ's day to day life you could recognize nothing but a man.

You sound like a materialist. Again, very unbecoming of a Christian.

as a matter of fact, modern physics has re-affirmed our faith that we do not know the substance of any object: just it's structure and how it relates to our senses. what it is and why it is are questions for philosophy and theology; substance is beyond the scope of human senses and must be sought through human logic.

there is a true substance for everything. you're being far too dualistic; a substance is not the same thing as a soul.

tell me, what is a quark made out of? and if what that quark was made out of was changed into something divine, would we be able to tell by our senses?

Christ's miracles were extra-ordinary events in His life. throughout the life of the Eucharist, there have been many extra-ordinary events. God does not perform verifiable miracles on a regular basis becuase He delights in our faith; He performs verifiable miracles on an extra-ordinary basis. there are many spotted dots through history, the eucharist changing into heart tissue flesh in lanciano, it turning away invaders to monasteries/convents, being administered by angels, floating, glowing, bleeding. all these spotted miracles through history are just like the spotted miracles throughout the life of Christ; but in Christ's day to day life you could recognize nothing but a man.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039031' date='Aug 7 2006, 11:29 AM']
You are missing the point. I thought the lady was terrible to put arsenic in the bread too...

but the fact is the BREAD is the SAME, it did not change into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Even the girl with Gluten allergies cant eat it after its been transubstaniated

The fact is the bread is the SAME.
[/quote]
To the SENSES it is the same. It is the Body and Blood of Christ but the body still registers it as bread and wine. That doesn't mean that Jesus can change it to His Body and Blood while still having it APPEAR as the original substance.

[DAF]

[quote]wow talk about PRIDE[/quote]
Care to prove me wrong? It's not pride it's the truth. I still remain to be impressed by your wit and knowledge; by your lacking ability to punch holes in Catholic theology.

Edited August 7, 2006 by DAF

[Socrates]

Here's some more Scripture to think about:
[quote]For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke and said: "Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me." In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. "This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me."
For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. [b]For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord[/b]. [/quote] 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

All the writings on the Eucharist from the early Church Fathers show a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510frs.asp"]Here's a list of quotes from the Church Fathers on the Real Presence.[/url]

Who should we trust, the early Church, or people centuries later, who deny the Eucharist?
Why are we to think that people living over 1500 years after Christ have a better grasp of what Christ really taught than the early Church Fathers?

Elsewhere, Budge criticizes Catholics for being too "modern" and liberal with interpretation of Scripture, and not being "Biblical" enough. Yet here, apparently, we take the Bible too seriously for her tastes, and are too old-fashioned and strict in our beliefs.
"This saying is hard; and who can hear it?" ~ John 6:61

Some things never change.

[journeyman]

Like one of the other posters in this thread, the Eucharist was a key factor in my acceptance of Catholicism. I don't understand it, I can't really explain it . . . the closest I've been able to get is that Jesus reached out of the ciborium and dragged me kicking and screaming into the Church.

Budge, I don't have the grasp of substance and accident like Aloysius and the other philosopher types that drop in, or the Early Fathers library like Socrates, but your basic point seems to be that natural is natural. You need to remember that God is supernatural . . . creating heaven and earth from the void and darkness is not natural, you and I can't do it, neither can modern science - there is historical evidence of other supernatural events - the incorruptible bodies of saints, the precious blood that flows every year (in France? Spain?) but then coagulates and doesn't move for the rest of the year, other miracles (many of which involve either the bread or the wine). It is a fundamental belief (dogma) in the Catholic Church that through God's (supernatural) intervention, the bread and wine become, as Jesus said they would, as he said they must, His body and blood.

One definition of faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof - Merriam Webster online 2(b) [url="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith"]http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith[/url]

If faith is God working in us, if it changes us and gives us a new birth from God, makes us adopted children of God through Jesus . . . why is it so hard to believe there might be some aspect of the bread or wine that we are not yet capable of seeing, identifying, categorizing?

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039112' date='Aug 7 2006, 10:37 AM']
wow talk about PRIDE...

the concept of ACCIDENTS was disproven centuries ago.

Every miracle in the Bible showed something happening. Same for Jesus, it was obvious and knowable that He was not like other men and divine...[miracles and more]

Human beings also have souls. They arent inanimate objects like bread.

Bread has no "inner reality" [substance] to be changed.

It is cooked dough.
[/quote]

The concept of accidents is a common Thomistic description of transubstantiation, but it is not the official Church description/definition of the miracle.

Edited August 8, 2006 by Justified Saint

[Budge]

[quote]
All the writings on the Eucharist from the early Church Fathers show a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.[/quote]

So what?

The apostles themselves warned of early deceivers during THEIR time, why is it so hard to believe that 100 ad, 200 ad and 300 ad will have their fill of them as well?

Tts 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

I believe many of the Catholic Church early Church fathers fit in that category. Some were ok Christians Rome claimed for itself but others were not like Constantine's pal Eusebius. Reading that man's work over on Medieval Sourcebook from Fordham Univerity, online was quite a lesson.


[quote]
Who should we trust, the early Church, or people centuries later, who deny the Eucharist?
Why are we to think that people living over 1500 years after Christ have a better grasp of what Christ really taught than the early Church Fathers?[/quote]

We should trust Gods Word. Not men who just because they come from ancient times, are considering as all knowing. Everyone had an opinion in 200 ad just as they do know. Using ECFs as your foundation instead of Gods Word is the same as going to Family Bible store and picking 20 books written by theologians and claiming they are all substantiative and form the foundation of your belief.

As for John 6 that chapter is so abused and twisted by Rome its not even funny.

Ive asked Catholics what does this verse mean to you? I never get an answer.
[font="Arial Black"]
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?[/font]
[quote]
Like one of the other posters in this thread, the Eucharist was a key factor in my acceptance of Catholicism. I don't understand it, I can't really explain it . . . the closest I've been able to get is that Jesus reached out of the ciborium and dragged me kicking and screaming into the Church.[/quote]

Another Jesus drew you kicking and streaming. Look Catholicism know that the wafer forms the foundation of the delusion. If we can teach that we are the only church that really has "god" [the wafer that is really god, that is how they win converts and seek to discredit all other Christian churches.[quote]

Budge, I don't have the grasp of substance and accident like Aloysius and the other philosopher types that drop in, or the Early Fathers library like Socrates, but your basic point seems to be that natural is natural. You need to remember that God is supernatural . . . creating heaven and earth from the void and darkness is not natural, you and I can't do it, neither can modern science - there is historical evidence of other supernatural events - the incorruptible bodies of saints, the precious blood that flows every year (in France? Spain?) but then coagulates and doesn't move for the rest of the year, other miracles (many of which involve either the bread or the wine). It is a fundamental belief (dogma) in the Catholic Church that through God's (supernatural) intervention, the bread and wine become, as Jesus said they would, as he said they must, His body and blood.[/quote]

Do me a favor and name one "miracle" in the Bible where NOTHING happens, that is able to be seen or felt or heard by any of the people talked about in the Bible.

The Eucharist "miracle" is akin to the Israelites swimming across the Red Sea and then getting out and saying...It really was parted, our clothes only appear wet but are really dry.

The bloody Eucharist miracles are from Satan, they are so gruesome, that even posting some of those pictures on TV would earn censorship. They make horror movies seem tame.

[quote]

. why is it so hard to believe there might be some aspect of the bread or wine that we are not yet capable of seeing, identifying, categorizing?[/quote]

The problem is your focus is on bread.

We are supposed to worship in Spirit and in truth, that means a focus on Jesus Christ.

[quote]
The concept of accidents is a common Thomistic description of transubstantiation, but it is not the official Church description/definition of the miracle.
[/quote]

What is the official description of the "miracle?"

[Justified Saint]

Budge,

The Church usually uses the term "apperances", stressing the complete transformation despite appearances. This is similar to the substance/accident description, but it is subtly different and distinct.

As to your other comments, I am thankful that many Protestants understand the value of the Eucharist to the early church and its present need for authentic Biblical worship.

In many ways your conception of Christianity and its place in history is so diametrically at odds with ours that it makes discussion on this point (and many others) fruitless.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039672' date='Aug 8 2006, 10:57 AM']
So what?
The bloody Eucharist miracles are from Satan, they are so gruesome, that even posting some of those pictures on TV would earn censorship. They make horror movies seem tame.
[/quote]

People said that the miracles Jesus performed were from demons too. Also, the Catholic Church is known for doing successful exorcisms and you can't really cast out demons with the help of demons.

[journeyman]

Budge, you didn't respond to the "supernatural" or "mystery" aspect at all. If we could understand all that God is and does, then He wouldn't be God and we wouldn't be His creatures.

If you're going to try to drag God down to the human level, so you can understand Him . . . there's an old phrase that seems to apply . . . 'any old stick will do to beat the Church of Rome, and if it breaks, you've got two!'

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039672' date='Aug 8 2006, 08:57 AM']
So what?

The apostles themselves warned of early deceivers during THEIR time, why is it so hard to believe that 100 ad, 200 ad and 300 ad will have their fill of them as well?

Tts 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision.

I believe many of the Catholic Church early Church fathers fit in that category. Some were ok Christians Rome claimed for itself but others were not like Constantine's pal Eusebius. Reading that man's work over on Medieval Sourcebook from Fordham Univerity, online was quite a lesson.
We should trust Gods Word. Not men who just because they come from ancient times, are considering as all knowing. Everyone had an opinion in 200 ad just as they do know. Using ECFs as your foundation instead of Gods Word is the same as going to Family Bible store and picking 20 books written by theologians and claiming they are all substantiative and form the foundation of your belief.[/quote]
If the Early Church Fathers were "vain talkers and deceivers," who were the "real Christians" of this time? Where were they hiding? Could you give some names? Do we have any of their writings?
The deceivers repeatedly warned against in the New Testament were in fact the Gnostics and other heretics, who did teach doctrines contrary to the true Gospels, and were condemned by the Church.
Those were the folks who gave us such "masterpieces" as the "Gospel of Judas" and the "Gospel of Mary Magdalen" among others.

[b]This brings up the question: How do we know what writings are God's Word? How do we know which are not?
There were many religious writings circulating around at the time of the Early Church. How are we to know which writings are indeed God's Word, and which are vain deceptions?
Where did the Bible, God's Word itself, come from?
From what authority are we to believe that the books contained in the Bible are indeed God's Word?[/b]

I have asked you this question earlier in the thread, Budge, and you have roundly avoided answering. (I'd appreciate a straight answer to that question, not a tangential rant on the evils of Romish Popery.)

The Early Church Fathers' words are of value because they show what the Church did indeed believe in its early years. You have thus far given no reason why we are to give greater credence to the ideas and interpretations 16th-20th century century protestants over the Christians of the first several centuries of the Church (other than that they happen to support your own beliefs, or, rather, lack thereof).

[quote]As for John 6 that chapter is so abused and twisted by Rome its not even funny.[/quote]
And I would answer it is rather the protestants who have abused and twisted this passage.

Scripture backs Catholic beliefs. We have given plenty of Scripture Verses backing belief in the Real Presence. Saint Paul himself in his Epistles shows belief that Christ is present in the Eucharist. You have provided nothing convincing to deny it.

Why should we trust your own "interpretation" of Scripture over that consistantly taught by Church for 20 centuries?

By what authority are we to believe yours, or anyone else's personal interpretation of Scripture is correct?

The thousands of non-Catholic denominations cannot all agree among themselves about the correct interpretation of any passage of Scripture, including those on the Eucharist. Some preach transubstantiation like the Catholic Church, others preach co-substantiation, others say Christ becomes spiritually present among the beleivers, others say it is merely a memorial.

What makes your particular interpretation so authoritative?

[quote]Ive asked Catholics what does this verse mean to you? I never get an answer.
[font="Arial Black"]
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?[/font][/quote]
When read in context, it is clear that this has nothing to do with the Eucharist. Christ was preaching that it was a man's heart, not whether he observed the dietary and cleanliness laws of the Pharisees, that made him clean or unclean.
[quote]But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man.[/quote]Matthew 15:18-20.

[quote]Another Jesus drew you kicking and streaming. Look Catholicism know that the wafer forms the foundation of the delusion. If we can teach that we are the only church that really has "god" [the wafer that is really god, that is how they win converts and seek to discredit all other Christian churches.[/quote]
[b]"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him." [/b] John 6:56-57.

[quote]Do me a favor and name one "miracle" in the Bible where NOTHING happens, that is able to be seen or felt or heard by any of the people talked about in the Bible.[/quote]
And where in the Bible does it say that God's presence must be shown by external signs and miracles?
[quote]"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet." And he left them, and went away.[/quote]Matthew 16:4

Edited August 9, 2006 by Socrates

[Birgitta Noel]

Wait Pham, I've figured it out! Budge IS Jack Chick!

[Budge]

Yeah you caught me!

Oh no!!!!!!!!!